June 1, 2009

"But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"

This characterization of Tiller fits exactly into ancient conservative, paranoid stories: a decadent, permissive and callous elite tolerates moral monstrosities that every common-sense citizen just knows to be awful. Conspiring against our folk wisdom, O'Reilly says, the sophisticates have shielded Tiller from the appropriate, legal consequences for his deeds. It's left to "judgment day" to give him what's coming.

So now that Tiller has been murdered, does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?

This does not mean there is a cause and effect between O’Reilly’s rhetoric and Tiller’s murder...

But... the over the top, demonizing rhetoric that has become the rage in 21st century America could have serious consequences....

Vigorous, heated discussion isn’t the same as demonization. And demonization has become the way to garner huge viewerships and readerships. But if issues are framed in terms of good versus evil some people could act.

I think Joe is saying that O'Reilly has blood on his hands.... although Joe avoids using the "demonizing" rhetoric that in his calculation is what makes you responsible for the actions your words inspire. Perhaps he means to invoke the First Amendment idea that lets us punish speech that creates a "clear and present danger." "Vigorous, heated debate" is important and protected. But there is a line that can be crossed, and Joe says it's "demonization." And O'Reilly demonized Tiller. So, Joe, could you spell it out? You meant to say that O'Reilly is morally responsible for Tiller's death, right?

O'Reilly demonized Tiller on 28 episodes of his show. I have no doubt his words wil be played endlessly on cable in some kind of hideous irony. This really could be the end to O'Reilly's dangerous, demonizing game.

What exactly does Sullivan mean? That O'Reilly should be shut down? That people should hold him responsible for murder and — what? — stop watching? I doubt if he means that O'Reilly will see the light and, on his own, decide to tone his routine down.

Is there now to be an argument that decent people who are anti-abortion cannot make strongly passionate statements in support of their cause — that they are linked to murder if they do? I don't think that's fair.

[G]ive credit to George Tiller for being a courageous man and making an important contribution to human welfare. Abortion is a crucially important social asset as well as a legal right in American society. The fact that women are not forced to carry pregnancies to term has helped open up tremendous new vistas of freedom for American women and has been an incalculable benefit to our society as a result.... Given that the material in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "fetus," a woman has as much right to control and/or dispose of that material as she has a right to contraception, regulating her periods, or anything else to do with gynecological health. As a result, there should be more abortions in this country rather than less....

George Tiller deserves a lot of credit for performing abortions at all.... But he especially deserves credit for continuing to perform abortions and late-term abortions after the first armed attack on him.... But he kept providing abortion services to women in Kansas despite the vigilante death sentence hanging over his head. It's significant that Tiller died while attending a Christian church, the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Not unlike Jesus, he died for the benefit of others.

Caric's argument would be more effective without the extreme rhetoric about "that material" and Jesus. But, I assume, like O'Reilly he wants us to pay attention to him. And I just have.

In the US, only 8% support 2nd trimester abortions except for life and health of the mother or confirmed severe fetal defect. Only 7% support 3rd Trimester abortions, except for life of the mother or severe genetic defect of the fetus.

Globally, 3rd Trimester abortions are only "legal" as a "convenience of the mother" matter in the USA and China (whose goals are well known...)

"George Tiller deserves a lot of credit for performing abortions at all..."Caric summarizes everything that is detestable about pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice) discussion.Given that there are 42 Million abortions per year, to suggest that "there should be more abortions in this country rather than less" is reprehensible.

But it does bring us back to this: the left, in arrogating this decision over against state-level approaches, has tried to settle a matter that is not settled even now, 35 years later.

Rather than resolving the controversy, the decision inflamed it. The discussions are as heated now as ever. And that has periodically resulted in violence.

I believe Obama's election and appointment of a presumably pro-choice judge has reignited that flame, and that answers the "why now?" question.

I said on the prior post that the left should have known (and does know) that Roe v. Wade decision has brought not peace but destabilization. And whenever that occurs, you are foolish not to realize that there will be blood.

On whose hands is the blood? Certainly the murderer of Tillman, certainly Tillman, who performed near-term abortions for convenience.

But if anti-abortion protesters are also culpable, more blame needs to be accepted by those who pushed this moral crisis into federal law as if that were any kind of solution, and by those who claim moral supremacy for those who want to delete "material" from their uterus as if it were no more than a piece of shit.

The games of life and death go on. I learn from this post that the threat to freedom these days are the Christianist Forced Birthers. Imagine the forced use of women to breed! The abolitionists today are the providers of the underground railway to the freedom of non-birth land.

I think the only honest answer is to say, yes, O'Reilly very well might have contributed to the murders, but no, there should not be any consequences. Its just part of the rough and tumble of freedom of speech.

I find it interesting that so many voices on the left are suddenly concerned that mere words might inspire murder. They didn't seem very concerns with showing all the abu ghraib pictures, revealing CIA secrets, the non-story of the flushed Koran, the endless screaming about waterboarding, the hyped claims of massacres of palestinians, the lancet report (which is shamelessly unscientific), and so on. There is a certain selectivity in their outrage.

If we are suppressing all views and reporting that might lead to murder, could we start with the expression that angers and upsets the people who murdered 3,000 americans about 8 years ago, rather than the expression that upsets the guy who killed one guy?

Of course i am being facetious. I don't want anyone to hold their tongue for fear of retribution, on themselves or the targets of their barbs. Instead, I want responsibility to come from within, rather than by the operation of law or private terror. But the hypocrisy of Andrew Sullivan worrying that words inspire violence is a bit much to take at 8 a.m.

Mary Kay claims that the hardest part of caring for Sarah was the verbal abuse the family endured from strangers. From, as she put it, other pro death people. The Browns moved from Wichita to Valleycenter, a rural farming community, because of a particularly ugly encounter with someone claiming that the Browns had done Sarah an injustice allowing her to live.

Oh, and here is a nice helpful comment after the piece on The Moderate Voice.

"Perhaps someone will put a bullet in Orally's ass to remind him his mouth is a weapon, particularly dangerous when used without active brain cells."Quite a shortage of active brain cells, and active heart cells, to come up with that comment.

elhombre, do you think that the Bush administration was foolish to ground civil aircraft for several days after Sept. 11, 2001? After all, the terrorists who carried out those attacks were dead. I guess the Bush administration was made up of hacks, too.

Speaking of hacks, in that video of O'Reilly interviewing Tiller's "victim," he never once asks the young woman what she expected when she went to an abortion clinic for an abortion. The whole story is presented as if Tiller snatched her off the street and killed her baby.

The whole story is presented as if Tiller snatched her off the street and killed her baby.

Of course, if the story elevated the woman to the same level of scrutiny it would just fuel the accusations that anti-abortion advocates want to put mothers who abort in jail for murder.

Besides, an abortionist is more culpable than the mother. After all, he is a repeat offender. He knows far, far better than she what he is killing. He can't invoke sympathy by claiming it's his body, or that he's facing a difficult situation if the baby is born.

elhombre, do you think that the Bush administration was foolish to ground civil aircraft for several days after Sept. 11, 2001? After all, the terrorists who carried out those attacks were dead. I guess the Bush administration was made up of hacks, too.

I went back to look at how Palladian invoked 9/11, Peter. If you think his use of it somehow justifies yours, even though his was for an entirely different purpose, you're fooling yourself.

He used it to refute the notion that the pro-life movement is not to blame for this incident ("Do you blame all Muslims for September 11th?") You're using it, on the other hand, to justify Obama's overreaction to this isolated act.

I think Joe is saying that O'Reilly has blood on his hands.... although Joe avoids using the "demonizing" rhetoric that in his calculation is what makes you responsible for the actions your words inspire. Perhaps he means to invoke the First Amendment idea that lets us punish speech that creates a "clear and present danger." "Vigorous, heated debate" is important and protected. But there is a line that can be crossed, and Joe says it's "demonization." And O'Reilly demonized Tiller. So, Joe, could you spell it out? You meant to say that O'Reilly is morally responsible for Tiller's death, right?Let me help a little with the most likely interpretation of Joe Gandelman's position:

If you are a left-leaning commentator, like Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan or Shaun Mullen and Kathy Kattenburg on Joe's own site, then the name-calling and vitriol directed at the other side is "heated debate" and is part of a healthy discussion.

If you are a right-leaning commentator, like O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Coulter, then name-calling and vitriol directed at the other side is "demonization" and is dangerous and contemptible.

Another interesting hypocrisy. On 9/12 or so, people were falling all over themselves to ask "why do they hate us?" To this day, we hear that now and according to the left the answer is BUSH.

But no one seems to be interested in asking why Tiller's killer hated him. No one seems to be willing to pretend he is a romanticized freedom fighter, etc.

Of course that is the right answer, but the disparate treatment is funny.

Of course, if we really wanted to try to stop terrorism by making the terrorists like us better, we would:

1. ban gay marriage in all of the US2. kill gay people (preferably the islamofascist way, by pulling walls down on top of them)3. nuke isreal4. ban speech that is anti-islam or anti-islamofascism.5. force our women to wear veils6. make islam the official relgion of america, with the non-muslims required to pay special taxes to support that church.

But instead whenever the talk turns to making the terrorists love us, its all "be weak and wishy-washy in opposing terrorism" and building daycare centers and the like, and not any of the issues above. The truth is the left uses incidents like this to freeload on the terror to try to enact their own program, and its wrong of them to do so.

mcg, sure, I'm willing to walk away from my example, made in haste. No, it was not reasonable to assume that all the attackers were dead after the plane crashed in PA.

But I stand by my statement that governments often (if not always) overreact. Just like runaway spending, we tend to object to it most when the other team is in charge, but it happens no matter who is in charge.

The Marxists, like Obama's advisors in his early life, are very up front in believing that "all political power comes out of the muzzel of a gun." So it is no surprise that their first goal after they have won election is creating a superior group of Gunmen. This was seen in the Elian Gonzales raid and in the original Waco raid. All they presently lack is a useful scapegoat like abortionist shooters.Think of Poland's attacks on the Germans in 1939.

The point is not so much what he said as it is that it illustrates how he thinks and argues.

It is the kind of thinking that explains the nonsensical accusations directed at you yesterday by liberals posting here; that explains the notion that O'Reilly and/or the "Christianists" are somehow responsible for Tiller's murder.

Make no mistake -- this was terrorism. And, being terrorism, we are obliged these days to consider the "root causes."

The root cause of this murder was contempt for the value of human life, both by the killer and the person killed. Murder begets murder; blood begets blood. Those who kill inevitably get killed.

We live in a culture of death. A culture that was all too fostered and promoted by Tiller. It is time for the killing to end -- on all sides.

Moreover, experience shows that when you oppress and take matters out of the political hands of the people, when you totally disenfranchise people on a crucial matter, a matter involving life and death -- when you eliminate all peaceful means for protecting human life -- then you increase the risk of some evil crazy nut resorting to non-peaceful means.

Now we see the demogogues coming out, exploiting this man's death in an attempt to further silence pro-lifers, to try to keep them from speaking the truth, that abortion is killing. But the truth is the truth.

Any murder is wrong, both that committed on Tiller and those committed by him. The killer, whoever he is, is an enemy of the pro-life movement.

It is time for the killing to end, on all sides. It is time to once again permit legal and peaceful means for the protection of all human life.

We're dealing with an act of politically-motivated violence, against a law-abiding American on American soil, intended to scare, intimidate, and change U.S. policy.Tiller was also used by US Senate Republicans as the primary reason to hold up the Sebelius nomination.

Now all these people want to shirk responsibility for their role in spreading hatred against this individual.

What I always found so odd is that people like Roeder who feel so strongly about intervening on behalf of fetuses at all costs are the same people that immediately after it's born believe that "you're on your own now kid", and it's evil and un-American to do so. Socialism even!

So, when some fringe fundmantalist "Muslims" take up violence to resolve political differences, then righties attack and blame ALL muslims.

When some fringe fundmantalist "Christians" take up violence to resolve political differences, well, then it's only one person and you can't blame them for inflaming the emotions of people like that.

A big difference here with liberals. We tend to adopt the SAME principles to apply to us as well as others. Conservatives have on set of principles for them and a completely difference set for anyone else.

Time for the right-wing to denounce and reject this demagogue.Yes, I agree. But they barely even denounce the (suspect) murderer.

It's all "oh, people shouldn't be killing people but the victim really was a bad man for doing things I don't think he should do [and I'll go on at length 20:1 more against the victim than the killer.]" --------------------

Flexo: when you eliminate all peaceful means for protecting human life -- then you increase the risk of some evil crazy nut resorting to non-peaceful means.Shorter Flexo: "If you don't give us what we want then we will kill people. And we're justified."

"Given that the material in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "fetus," a woman has as much right to control and/or dispose of that material as she has a right to contraception, regulating her periods, or anything else to do with gynecological health."

I don't understand how any human being with an ounce of true humanity can say this, let alone believe it, about a viable baby in the womb.

elHombre, you're writing this on a web site where various people have been arguing the victim was a bad man who probably had it coming, that our society's failure to outlaw abortion is a root cause of the murder and where other such excuses continue to be made.

Also, where people have made the killer's case that abortion and this Dr are very wrong.

Did the murderers of JFK and RFK have such a choir behind them to make their case, to attack their victims? No.

Were the assassinations of JFK and RFK terrorism? Did their outspoken political opponents and media critics have blood on their hands?

elHombre -- I never said that pro-lifers were terrorists or that they were complicit. I said that the killer of the killer is a terrorist and that HE is complicit.

Even though this is the moral equivilent of the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer in prison, murder is murder, and murder is wrong. The entire pro-life community is against such tactics. The death that Tiller so freely dispensed is not the answer to combatting the likes of him.

mcgLong weekend, sorry. I just meant that prolifers seem to think that intervention is an absolute must to save and protect the unborn seem to be the same people that believe that after Day 1 that same infant is on it's own. Whether it requires food stamps to live, or Head Start programs to better thrive, etc.

Reviewing the definition of terrorism, I conclude the Tiller murders, shootings and other harassments, along with the other acts of violence from elements of the anti-abortion movement, fit precisely as acts of terror:

ter⋅ror⋅ism–noun1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Protesters blockaded Tiller's clinic during Operation Rescue's "Summer of Mercy" protests during the summer of 1991, and Tiller was shot by Rachelle Shannon at his clinic in 1993. Tiller was wounded in both arms, and Shannon remains in prison for the shooting... Tiller's clinic was severely vandalized earlier this month. According to the Associated Press, his lawyer said wires to security cameras and outdoor lights were cut and that the vandals also cut through the roof and plugged the buildings' downspouts. Rain poured through the roof and caused thousands of dollars of damage in the clinic. Tiller reportedly asked the FBI to investigate the incident.

1) The murder if Tiller was wrong.2) The wrongness of that murder has no bearing on the moral qualities of Tiller.3) Given the practices that Tiller engaged in, it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that he was engaged in evil activities.

Flexo -- "It is time for the killing to end -- on all sides. . . . Any murder is wrong . . . The killer, whoever he is, is an enemy of the pro-life movement. It is time for the killing to end, on all sides."

What is different about this murder is that the perpetrator is in a class--two classes really, male and white--that our society holds in low regard.

If you want to know how many pro-life groups condemned the murder just google-news it. They all have. And I would like to know how many conservative groups or politicians held all Muslims responsible for 9/11 or 7/7 or smaller attacks like the Seattle killings.

You are just proving my point--the merits of the crime mean nothing to you, it's all about "the narrative." This psycho murderer is the left's best friend right now. He will be portrayed as a typical conservative, and that's a shame.

PatCA, I never said he was typical and said several times he was an extremist, etc. I have not seen anyone on the many left blogs I've visited on this subject saying the killer represents all conservatives.

In short, you're just making that up.

As far as con's holding all muslims responsible, are you fricken kidding me? All of a sudden all the anti-Muslim talk never happened?

Why do you guys insist on - demand - using the phrase "Islamic terrorists?" Because you're only blaming the individuals?

Ah, thanks for that link, Alpha, if for no other reason than its title suggests that the left has no compuction against making the 9/11 comparison after all: "Bill O'Reilly's jihad against Dr. George Tiller"

I thought liberals were all about the nuance, the gray areas. But apparently, AlphaLiberal didn't get the memo, because he thinks the only two choices are "blame the individuals" or "blame ALL members of the group".

Given the practices that Tiller engaged in, it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that he was engaged in evil activities.OK this goes right to the topic of the thread. If people get their information only from sleazebags like O'Reilly and so many in the anti-abortion movement, they will have a false view of what Tiller does. And that includes the killer.

I've read several accounts from his patients who describe him as a good, caring and dedicated man. One account from a father where they had to abort a late-term abortion for medical reasons (conjoined twins wouldn't have made it).

But O'Reilly used his broadcast powers to target a man who became the target of a gun in the hand of a zealot. O'Reilly feeds the zealot's ire and hate.

And a man died. But don't expect O'Reilly to be denounced by conservatives. They will make excuses for him, too.

AL, you're the one observing "anti-Muslim" talk among some and elevating it to a blanket statement that conservatives blamed all Muslims for 9/11. If you don't want to back up your own shit, then retract it, but don't whine when you're called on it.

Are you kidding? Tiller sucked the brains out of viable fetuses at a stage of development late enough that even a cretin like you could not logically deny their "humanness." How do you describe that or characterize Tiller accurately without sounding "overheated" or "incendiary."

I don't like O'Reilly, but nobody needs to make excuses for him engaging in public discourse about a controversial, inhumane practice.

You are being disingenuous and ridiculous. (And yes, I am dismayed by Tiller's murder.)

BTW, please provide your source for concluding that the killer was familiar with O'Reilly's statements.

McG, it's laughable that you would even deny the existence of strong current of conservative thought (probably a majority of cons from the sounds of things) which says we are at war with Islam, itself.

Hell, Rudy G was running around demanding that we call it "Islamic terrorism."

I agree that 100% of all conservatives do not hold this view. Really, that goes without saying.

Those that don't take this view, though, tend to be awfully quiet about criticizing their peers, just as there is no criticism from within con ranks of O'Reilly's hate mongering.

Here's the case AL is referring to about conjoined twins, what he would like us to believe is evidence of George Tiller's compassion.

One cannot help but have compassion for the parents. Your heart breaks when you hear stuff like this. Had these children not been killed, they would indeed have faced a difficult and brief life. (Indeed their life was difficult already.) The parents faced unavoidable grief and suffering.

So of course the proper solution was to kill them.Obviously the idea of actually delivering these babies, possibly prematurely, and administering pallative care was not an option at all. Nevermind the fact that this is likely what any other doctor would have done.

This is what I was talking about in the previous thread. This is perfect, albeit gut-wrenching, example of the false choice I was talking about in the previous thread.

Hell, Rudy G was running around demanding that we call it "Islamic terrorism."

I don't think you get it. If a group of Christians of the size and scope of Al Qaeda were committing similar acts, and claiming religious justification for same, I'd be calling them Christian terrorists. Heck, there probably are. There are Hindu terrorists, too. The key here is that you categorize them by what drives them. But when I use such terms it doesn't follow that I'm blaming all Muslims, Christians, or Hindus for the work that these criminals do.

Look, I get it. You have partaken of the hate against Dr Tiller. You make it sound like he enjoyed carrying out those procedures. BTW, please provide your source for concluding that the killer was familiar with O'Reilly's statements.I didn't say that, but would be surprised if he wasn't familiar with O'Reilly and O'Reilly .

I said "the zealot" in a general sense. the killer is not the only anti-abortion zealot out there. There are more.

Oh, and tell us, please how that DHS report warning of right wing extremism and violence was wrong again.

...even a cretin like you...Typical conservative. Someone disagrees with you and you have to insult. Constitutionally unable to have a respectful conversation.

Oh, and there's left-wing and right-wing terrorists, too. Eric Rudolph was a right-wing terrorists. Bill Ayers as a left-wing terrorist. There are radical environmental terrorists. What's the point in ignoring the ideology that drives their crime?

But when I use such terms it doesn't follow that I'm blaming all Muslims, Christians, or Hindus for the work that these criminals do.I don't typically see you in that Islam-hating camp.

But we aren't making excuses for Scott Roeder either.Do you actually believe this? I could pull out a list of quotes from these threads alone, and others from the greater blogosphere, showing how Tiller is attacked as a "baby killer," he had it coming, no surprise when you're a baby killer, you wouldn't pass our legislation so of course this happens, etc, etc.

These attacks on Tiller (see Freeman Hunt) far outweigh anything the writers have to say about his killer.

It's pretty close to nod and wink stuff with pro forma "oh, I decry murder, now excuse me while I attack the victim."

No, no, I'd really like to see AlphaLiberal develop this logic. What's your solution, AL? That Bill O'Reilly shouldn't have been allowed to say what he said, for fear of what some nutjob might do in the future? Nevermind the lack of any evidence that he was inspired by such talk?

I mean, that's cool, let's develop that principle. I'm really looking forward to shutting down a bunch of left-wing hate out there pre-emptively. I mean someone could get killed you know.

It's pretty close to nod and wink stuff with pro forma "oh, I decry murder, now excuse me while I attack the victim."

It is what it is. Here's the example I used in a previous thread. Suppose you hear about a guy who was just minding his own business in a bar when some nutjob comes in and shoots him dead at point blank range. Clear case of premeditated murder, bastard needs to be locked up for the rest of his life, case closed. End of discussion. No argument. What's left to talk about?

Then you come to find out that in the process of wrapping up the investigation, determining motive, etc. a huge cache of self-made child porn is found in the victim's house.

Murderer still goes to jail, everyone agrees. But am I supposed to show as much pity towards the victim as I did before I found out about the child porn? Sorry, can't do it.

Why was Tiller called a baby killer? Because, quite simply, he killed babies. Babies who, without his tender care, would have been viable outside the womb. If those same children had been outside the womb, he would be considered a great serial killer and a monster.

He shouldn't have been murdered--but I have very little sympathy for a guy who went to work for three decades and poisoned and ripped apart children.

Wow, the irony couldn’t possibly be thicker. Just as the left has a president who seems ready to throw in the towel in fighting the islamofascist jihad, after years of the left excusing the term jihad, now they slap it on o’reilly. Given that they don’t take the actual jihad very seriously, does that mean they will decide to wave the white flag to o’reilly’s jihad, too?

(Not that I am blaming you for those quoted words. I am just commenting on the mentality they highlight.)

--------------

alpha lib

> they will have a false view of what Tiller does.

Okay, what is the false view of what he does? Can you prove it, you know, with citations?

> for medical reasons (conjoined twins wouldn't have made it).

“burn the village to save the village!” And this is the best you can come up with, for an unsourced defense. He killed the babies because they were going to die anyway. Probably.

Why not, instead of a partial birth abortion, induce early birth instead? Why gratuitously kill the baby? Sure most of the time the baby will die, but why not give it a chance?

> who became the target of a gun in the hand of a zealot.

Notice how the liberal mindset still blames the gun, as though it pulled the trigger on its own.

> O'Reilly feeds the zealot's ire and hate.

By the way, do you know he watched the o’reilly factor even once? And again, if the person did something despicable, why shouldn’t Bill O’Reilly denounce it? Because he is scared that someone might act?

When exactly has the left ever bit its tongue because it was scared the terrorists killing our soldiers now might kill even more?

There is nothing wrong with Bill saying, “the truth is the truth and let the chips fall as it may.” If you have caught O’Reilly in an actual lie about the man, which inflames the issue, that is one thing. But even your defense of Tiller is pretty condemnatory and you have yet to dispute anything O’Reilly said about him.

MCG, you and many conservatives call "hate" basic criticism. O'Reilly says it's hateful to rebroadcast his rants on the web and show how they are factually wrong.

Shit, we don't even have a common language anymore! "Hate" doesn't mean what you think it does!

--------------Aaron, meet Aaron:

> which says we are at war with Islam

So you say, without citations.And somehow this person finds no contradiction with this earlier statement in the same post!

...just as the left has a president who seems ready to throw in the towel in fighting the islamofascist jihad, after years of the left excusing the term jihad, now they slap it on o’reilly. Forget that he's accusing MCG of being a leftist for the moment, any mind that can simultaneously hold both thoughts probably needs professional help.

You defined the discussion in terms of the reaction by commenters here after the fact of the killing. That was one comment that you've cherry picked. I've also noted that Dr Tiller was a victim of anti-abortion hate, real hate, for decades.

A prime target of your movement is killed dead. Maybe the histrionics and demagoguery should end?

Shit, we don't even have a common language anymore! "Hate" doesn't mean what you think it does!

Then why don't you define it for us, AL? What exactly has O'Reilly said that constitutes hate? Calling George Tiller a baby killer? I'll make you a deal. You define "hate" and I'll provide evidence that it's practiced by your side as well. Now before we bring out the ol' ""two wrongs don't make a right" argument here, keep in mind that you're the one that started in with the blanket condemnation of conservatives and elevation of liberals (see, for example, your second comment). I just don't think you can invent a standard consistent with that judgement.

Oh, and I think we're going to have to tone down the environmental rhetoric so common on the left. (source)

When Newsweek interviewed a specialist on eco terrorism he had this to say about the logic of burning down condos and releasing toxic fumes in to the air and burning down National Forest stations: “It's just as logical as the radical anti-abortion activists who killed abortion doctors because they're against murder. We're not dealing with logic; we're dealing with emotional feelings.”

I mean, if that's what we're dealing with, and given that murder has already occurred under the guise of eco-protest, Al Gore is just going to have to tone it down. Think of the children!

If I understand Alpha Liberal's argument, because someone murdered an abortionist, prolifers are all supposed to shut up about abortion.No, you don't understand. But you probably don't want to, anyway.

You guys have taken your opposition to levels that are best described as "zealotry". [See: stem cells and contraception]. Your movement has pumped up the hate and disinformation. Now, you could tone it down, get rational, but you aren't and won't.

And, I simply do not believe that most of you all regret this killing. When you continue to attack the victim, I think many (not all) of you, welcome the killing of Dr. Tiller and think he had it coming.

After all, the right wing is very in favor of killing when it comes to Muslims, capital punishment (which would be dead, itself, if not for conservatives), pre-emptive wars, detainees, etc.

Thus, I think we will see more politically-motivated killings from the right in our future.

Freeman, I found your writings on the subject most shocking as you attacked the victim and used it as an opportunity to push your cause rather than accord the respect we typically do to the recently deceased.

From some here, that is to be expected. Not you. Maybe that explains it.

AL, learn to read. The term "jihad" was used on the web site you linked to. That is what Aaron was referring to. If its use is anti-Muslim, simply because it is used outside of a Muslim context, then congratulations---you've accused Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos of being anti-Muslim.

Again, AlphaLiberal, you haven't defined hate. The best evidence of your position that you've provided so far that only positions you disagree with can be characterized in this manner. Apparently those who oppose abortion are "zealots" because---gasp! They also take consistent positions on other related issues! My goodness!

Father Fox: ...it sure reminds me of how the slaveholders wanted to shut down the abolitionist press.

Bingo. The abortion issue is absolutely the modern equivalent of the slavery issue.

Here's one question I have: Why are people like Andrew Sullivan assuming that all pro-lifers are Christians? I switched from pro-choice to pro-life before I was ever a Christian. There are plenty of secular people who are anti abortion rights.

Now you double down. I made it clear I was only talking about islamofascist jihad by putting the word in front of it. Anyone reading that would understand that every reference to jihad after that was implicitly talking about islamofascist jihad. It was unnecessary to type of the whole phrase each time.

And you want to say jihad is used by all muslims? Agreed. That is why I put the word “ISLAMOFASCIST” in front of it, so that even an idiot like you would say I was talking about something distinct from what most muslims consider jihad. Its called a “modifier.” Look it up.

Sorry, you were caught in a clear lie. And you are the one squirming.

> You guys have taken your opposition to levels that are best described as "zealotry". [See: stem cells and contraception].

Actually the stem cell controversy is about pro-abortion zealotry. At a time when our president has blown a hole in the deficit, he has simultaneously continued and expanded a program to fund research, which if it was all it was cracked up to be would have no trouble finding private funding.

Further, we have found many ways to harvest stem cells without destroying fetuses. So the destruction of fetuses is officially gratuitous: utterly unnecessary. But the pro-abortion lobby is not happy until a fetus is treated with less respect than garbage, so it goes on.

And contraception? Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting that conservatives want to ban contraception?

> Your movement has pumped up the hate and disinformation.

So you say after pretending that there was something wrong with opposing embryonic stem cell research and that conservatives are opposed to contraception (not to mention the lies I just caught you in, in my last post).

> And, I simply do not believe that most of you all regret this killing.

Well, given your funhouse mirror view of conservativism, we will take your assessment with all the seriousness it deserves.

> When you continue to attack the victim, I think many (not all) of you, welcome the killing of Dr. Tiller and think he had it coming.

Wait, so does that mean all you democrats who asked why the terrorists hate us “welcome the killing of [our soldiers and citizens], and think [they] had it coming”? Funny the double standards here. From dissent being the highest form of patriotism (which jefferson did not say), to this.

> After all, the right wing is very in favor of killing when it comes to Muslims,

To paraphrase Reagan “there you go again.” No, the “right wing” is not in favor of randomly murdering muslims or some kind of religious “final solution.”

> capital punishment

Yes, most sane people recognize there is a point where a person forfeits their right to live. I assume you were all broken up about the nazis we hung at Nuremberg, right?

> which would be dead, itself, if not for conservatives

Yes, if there was no opposition to your policies, you would get your way on everything. And that is your heart’s desire, isn’t it?

> pre-emptive wars,

Obama agrees, by the way. And rightfully so. We decided not to wait until the bad guys came to us. If we believed in preemptive war in 2000, maybe September 11 wouldn’t have happened.

> detainees

Obama agress on that, too. And I am sure you were all broken up about the nazis and confederates held in america without trial or certain release date, too, right?

Was Dr. Tiller one of only a handful of physicians who would perform a late term abortion in this country? Over 20 years ago I was repeatedly offered a late term abortion by physicians in a major medical center hospital affiliated with a well known medical school. I carried my baby to term because I felt that a mother's first duty was to protect her unborn baby. I felt that a baby should not have to be "perfect" to be allowed to be born.And the doctor and the ultrasound are not perfect in predicting the outcome of a pregnancy. If you are faced with the possibility of a birth abnormality, err on the side of choosing life. I am glad I did.

that our society's failure to outlaw abortion is a root cause of the murder AL, you've completely misstated what several people have said. It was imposing abortion by fiat instead of democratic means that has riled so many for so long.

The GOP has treated pro-life voters with all the respect that Titus accords his partners.While the Dems mislead their voters by claiming overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. And Titus is good for a reach-around (so I've been told).

What kind of wacko "Christian" church would have an abortionist for an usher?

AL, would you think it wrong if someone were to accuse YOU of causing these shootings by your intemperate remarks in the past?More, "curiously dumb." I have not made a target of hate out of US soldiers.

a) So you would have no problem with the term "Christofascist?" (Esp knowing many Christians actually aided, real living and killing fascism). When you put the shoe on the other foot, you might see the term "Islamofascist" is an anti- Islamic slur, in itself.

b) This is an amazing statement: Actually the stem cell controversy is about pro-abortion zealotry. .

Really. What a colorful alternative reality you inhabit!

There was no stem cell controversy before the right wing made one, on the same grounds as your anti-abortion crusade.

Circulating rumors of death squads:You really are pretty dumb if you don't know the difference between news reports and rumors.

And, you are equating criticism of war policy with wanting to kill US soldiers.

Again, dumb. But, worse, behind that is an authoritarian philosophy which says leaders must not be criticized by citizens. And it's not the death squads which are the problem, but people knowing about them.

I came to post this quote from the so-called "pro-life" movement opposing contraception:

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

Since that phenomenon is virtually non-existant, yes, I do have a problem with that. When 20 people fly planes into buildings shouting “Jesus is Lord!” and “kumbayah!” I will think its time to talk about a real christofascism movement. Of course usually to liberals a christofascist is simply a christian who disagrees with them.

Islamofacism in various forms is in control of the majority of the middle east right now. There are very few souls breathing free in that region and most of them were made free by us. I have faith that those living currently under the boots of dictators would like to live in freedom and peace with us. But there are literally thousands, maybe millions of people, working hard to destroy what freedom there is in terms of their twisted version of islam. There is nothing wrong with calling it by an appropriate name that acknowledges its claim to islam, while differentiating it from islam.

The real problem here is that you, like most liberals, use that term to try to imagine a false equivalency that doesn’t exist.

But your words betray the truth. Liberals don’t treat the so-called christofascists like terrorists. They don’t accord them nearly as much respect, asking why they hate us and the like.

> Really. What a colorful alternative reality you inhabit!

Notice, you don’t dispute any of my facts. And considering the lies you have been caught in, I will take your bare assertions with all the seriousness it deserves.

The fact is that your president said we are out of money. But he still spends on stem cells. The fact is you can do the research without killing embryos, so why don’t we do that instead, and then not needless divide people? What could rationally explain this behavior?

> There was no stem cell controversy before the right wing made one

You mean when the Bush presidency for the first time in history choose to fund any of it, but not as much as you would like? Talk about alternate realities.

> Uh, I wrote that several months ago.

Didn’t say you wrote it today. What I said is you used language that incites the terrorists against our soldiers. And clearly you do. Indeed, did in this thread.

> And, you are equating criticism of war policy with wanting to kill US soldiers

No, I am hoisting you on your own petard. You equated criticism of abortion with wanting abortion doctors killed. I showed that following your logic, you had encouraged the death of US soldiers.

> And it's not the death squads which are the problem, but people knowing about them.

And apparently to you its not the fact that doctors are committing barbaric and unnecessary abortions past the point of viability, but people knowing about them. How does your petard feel, biache?

And no, nothing hirsh says is trustworthy. If he said the sky was blue on a sunny day, I would get independent verification.

> A big difference here with liberals. We tend to adopt the SAME principles to apply to us as well as others. Conservatives have on set of principles for them and a completely difference set for anyone else.

For example, on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter's question, President Bush said: "They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."Look in the Wash Post for a citation.

Because it's nothing but a dodge, an attempt to divert attention from the fact you're getting your ass handed to you.It's a simple question. You're thoughtful and you've carefully developed your position, right?

If a woman refuses to have the pregnancy you want to force upon her, how much jail time do you want to give her?

"Look, a main target of hate by the conservative and anti-abortion movement has been shot dead in his church. Without the hate directed at him by your movement, he would be alive today.There are a whole lot of ways that he could have been alive today.

Only *one* of those ways involves people remaining silent in the face of evil.

Claiming that you're not arguing that 1) people should not have been trying to convince others of the evil of killing healthy babies during the third trimester, and 2) that no one should say anything bad about Tiller now that he's dead, just doesn't wash because that's what I'm hearing in nearly every one of your posts.

You're saying that you're trying to combat speech with more speech... as I read what you've been writing I'm finding myself more and *more* willing to consider or even *say* that Karma is a b*tch. What goes around comes around, and my first reaction at seeing the first blog-post title was... "Well, I should have seen that coming."

No one has disputed Cedarford's statistics. Less than 1 in 10 people support 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions except for medical necessity. And suddenly no one is supposed to utter anything negative about a practice that 90% of the population thinks is *bad*? And when 90% of the population agrees that late term abortions of healthy babies is bad... how is it that this person was able to continue performing them?

Not the medically necessary procedures to save the life of the mother or deal with severe deformities or an nonviable fetus... even if he did some of those, too... but healthy fetuses from healthy mothers. When over 90% of the population thinks that is wrong... how did he manage to continue?

And why should anyone either before his murder or after it, refrain from expressing just how barbaric this is?

Hmm. You know what? That isn't what Aaron asked for. Try again.Know what? I'm not your errand boy. To claim that Bush did not tie Iraq and 9/11 together is insipid.

Bush was careful from coming out and saying it. But he combined them in the same sentences constantly, his VP continues to argue too this day there was a link, his Secretary of State made similar comments.

You guys are part of about 18% of Americans who still buy Cheney's bullshit.

And the crazy party is that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result, all the while you puff up and pontificate and moralize.

Actually, no, we don't. It's discussed plenty, actually, usually in the context of refuting the absurd claims of liberals like yourself who seem to think pro-lifers are out to make pregnant women into criminals. We're not indulging you, however.

But I tell you what. I will give you an explicit answer when you give me a concrete, nonpartisan definition of "hate".

> [on the claim bush lied to us about 9-11 and Iraq being linked] Bush was careful from coming out and saying it. But he combined them in the same sentences constantly,

Did he also use his thought rays to convince you? Bwahahaha.

So basically you are mad at Bush for saying that we were invading Iraq because 9-11 taught us not to wait until the danger is imminent, because then it might be too late. You apparently are mad at him for having a “bad thought.”

> his VP continues to argue too this day there was a link, his Secretary of State made similar comments.

But you said Bush, not Cheney and whichever Secretary of State you are referring to (Rice or Powell).

> And the crazy party [part] is that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result

According to whom? Lancet? Yeah, lancet said the first time that a hundred thousand iraqis died, give or take about a hundred thousand. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

> Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

> If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

In other words, "I'm not waiting for an imminent threat." So where exactly did Bush lie about iraq being an imminent threat? when did he ever say it was?

In other words, "I'm not waiting for an imminent threat." So where exactly did Bush lie about iraq being an imminent threat? when did he ever say it was?Answers: In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."In my book, "45 minutes" is imminent.

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."Turns out that was based on a forged document. To this day, we don't know who committed the forgery as the investigation was halted.

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.That's the short list. It gets longer, especially if you include other people speaking for Bush, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.

"Now, if you think "toned down" = "silence", well, maybe that explains why conservatives get a reputation as not very bright."

How much is toned down then, Alpha?

Please demonstrate an appropriately toned down version of "killing a fetus that would be viable outside of the womb is certainly murder."

Please describe a level of public opposition that would not motivate some crazy person to commit an act of violence.

You seem to think that there is something strong enough to get the message across (ie, not-silence) without the risk of inflaming the unstable. So I think it's up to you to describe what an acceptable pro-life rhetoric would be.

... And I'm not *happy* that he's dead. His murder provides too much ammunition for those who want to promote abortion as a noble endeavor undertaken by lofty individuals.

If he had been sent to jail, yes, I would freely admit to being happy about that. But dead? Of course not.

Having said that, I know this is going to sound crazy, but just for the sake of tweaking AL I'll say it: it is not inconceivable that George Tiller is in heaven. He wouldn't be the first murderer to make it up there.

Thank you, Synova, for making my point that the anti-abortion forces are also anti-birth control.

MCG, see Synova's comments. (Also, on "insipid" in this case it refers to a dumb, tired, worthless conversation. You guys are arguing George Bush didn't try to tie together 9/11 and Iraq. That's either dumb or dishonest but not interesting).

Synova, "forced pregnancy" is when a woman is denied the ability to control her own reproductive destiny and forced to carry a child to term, as you seek.

All you brave warriors are awfully timid about explaining what punishments you would mete for parties to abortions.

Synova: I would never suggest prison time for a woman who was raped.Rape? Where does rape come up? The forced birth is the alternative when a woman wants an abortion. You want to force her to have the birth. Hence, "forced birth."

If she does not have the birth but has an abortion instead, how much prison time do you want to give her?

(Simple question but the lengths they'll go to to dodge it! you'd think they'd know this answer by now, after all, they call abortion "murder" and "evil").

You guys are arguing George Bush didn't try to tie together 9/11 and Iraq.

Geez, your goalpost moving is tiresome. I have no problem saying that Bush didn't try to tie together 9/11 and Iraq. Of course he did. It's called the War on Terror.

That's not the point. You claimed Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not the same thing, not by a longshot. And when asked to prove it you pulled out all sorts of proof for lots of things, but not that.

Again, AL, you stop dodging and I will too. Give us that definition of "hate" I asked for many, many comments ago. Come on, man, it can't be that hard. Why do you insist on dodging it? I think it's because you know damn well you don't have one. You just decide any strident political speech you don't like is "hate", and don't want to be pinned down to a standard that would convict your side of the same.

...those who want to promote abortion as a noble endeavor undertaken by lofty individuals.This is what I'm talking about. Such obvious, shameful lying. Hyperbole. False.

Aaron:

Btw, Alpha, what Tiller did was not legal. It wasn't prosecutred, but it wasn't legal, either. Let's not canonize the good doctor just yet.Really? Well the Kansas AG just prosecuted him for not having an independent doctor sign off and 18 or 19 counts were dismissed against Dr Tiller.

He was prosecuted for that and found innocent. Perhaps you're a sharper legal mind than the Kansas AG. I wouldn't be surprised.

One of Walter Scott's novels, The Heart of Midlothian, revolves around a Scottish law that made it a capital offense if a woman known to be pregnant could not produce the child. They were having a little infanticide problem at the time. A good read, at times quite moving, but the epilogue is hokey.

That was at the time of Queen Anne, who makes a brief appearance when the sister of a condemned non-mother hitchhikes to London to beg for mercy from the Queen. The hitchhiker had refused to lie for her sister in court, when everyone expected her to.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not loveWhich alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove:O no! it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken;It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come:Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom.If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

It is only a matter of time before alpha takes his ball and goes home. When you have to play by the rules of reality he cannot compete. BTW, unless a woman was raped she had a "choice" to keep her legs closed.